BLOG: To enhance trust in the Norwegian child protection system, efforts must be made to improve the quality and fairness of case proceedings. To manage that, child protection workers need enough time, resources and competency.
Blog post by Mathea Loen, PhD Candidate at the Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism, Department of Government, University of Bergen
We often hear that the trust in Norwegian child protection is low. Dissatisfaction with the child protection services has been documented through research, and it is evident from stories in the news media, social media, and through widespread demonstrations.[1] At the same time, Norway is ranked among the top countries in the world when it comes to child rights, safety, development, and opportunities.[2] Why is this? How can a country with highly developed institutions, a strong rule of law, and a regard for children as rights-bearers experience legitimacy challenges in its child protection system? How do we understand this paradox, and is there anything one can do to preserve trust?
How can a country with highly developed institutions, a strong rule of law, and a regard for children as rights-bearers experience legitimacy challenges in its child protection system?
MATHEA LOEN
What is trust in the child protection system?
First, we need to consider what we mean when we talk about trust. According to the American political scientist Russell Hardin, we should understand trust as a three-part relation in which ‘A trusts B with respect to X’. In this case, the trustor, A, is the people – the citizens. The trustee, B, is the child protection authorities, or the case workers, and X is the action or behaviour that is expected of B. In sum, trust is based on the expectation that the trustee (B) acts according to A’s interests and promotes his or her well-being. However, trust also includes a risk that B will not act according to A’s interests.[3]
Following this definition, citizens may trust the child protection authorities to protect children. However, what if some citizens expect the child protection authorities to protect the parents? Or the family? In other words, what is X? Protecting children? Or protecting the parents? Or both? Here we start to see tension. If citizens expect that the child protection services (CPS) protects the family, whilst the CPS is more concerned about protecting children, the actions and measures implemented might not fulfil citizens’ expectations of what they are supposed to do.
If citizens expect that the child protection services (CPS) protects the family, whilst the CPS is more concerned about protecting children, the actions and measures implemented might not fulfil citizens’ expectations of what they are supposed to do.
MATHEA LOEN
Two aspects of mistrust
First, alignment with what citizens believe child protection services ought to do, and what the child protection services actually do is important. Child protection laws and regulations in Norway are generally aligned with the public will.[4] However, there is probably room for improvement. Central actors in child protection (administrators and managers, researchers and politicians) can be more transparent and clearer about the aims and tasks of the services, and make sure that this is communicated to the public.
Second, scholars of trust and legitimacy point to procedural fairness as a mechanism for promoting trust. Essentially, this perspective argues that people will accept decisions or actions even if they don’t agree with the result if the processes leading up to the decision are perceived as impartial, fair, and otherwise in line with the rule of law.
A solution for promoting trust?
When the child protection services get involved with a family and open an investigation, one would expect the social workers to follow the principles of procedural fairness. This implies, firstly, that decisions about child protection services and measures are based only on the facts and information that are deemed relevant as stipulated in the law.[5] Second, it entails treating the parents and child(ren) with compassion and respect, explaining the processes and the decisions to the family members, and ensuring that both parents and children can participate in all steps of the decision-making process. This way, fairness, transparency, predictability and contestability guide the work of the child protection authorities, improving the conditions for trust and acceptance of decisions.[6]
For any of these things to happen, it is crucial that the child protection workers have sufficient competency, resources and time to conduct proper investigations. Spending more time with the family will help the social workers to fully understand the families’ needs and capacities. Getting to know more about the family will also lead to better and more suitable measures, which again enhance trust. It is possible to make this happen, but it will possibly require a larger budget for the services, which is decided by the political decision makers. Inevitably, preserving and strengthening trust in the child protection system is a political question.
For any of these things to happen, it is crucial that the child protection workers have sufficient competency, resources and time to conduct proper investigations.
MATHEA LOEN
[1] Christian Lo, ‘Om institusjonell og mellommenneskelig tillit (og mistillit) i samarbeid mellom velferdstjenester’, in Mot bedre samarbeid? (Universitetsforlaget, 2022), 38–54, https://www.scup.com/doi/10.18261/9788215045030-2022-03.
[2] Jill Duerr Berrick, Neil Gilbert, and Marit Skivenes, ‘Child Protection Systems across the Globe – an Introduction’, in International Handbook of Child Protection Systems, ed. Jill Duerr Berrick, Neil Gilbert, and Marit Skivenes (NY: Oxford University Press, 2023).
[3] Claus Offe, ‘How Can We Trust Our Fellow Citizens?’, in Democracy and Trust, ed. Mark E. Warren, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 42–87, https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511659959A011/type/book_part; Niklas Luhmann, ‘Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives’, in Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, ed. Diego Gambetta, Electronic edition (University of Oxford, 2002), 94–107, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a5ae78f779284090b9cadb9c5b05501c223f9c23#page=3.18.
[4] Mathea Loen and Marit Skivenes, ‘The Value of Responsibility, Certainty, and Child Rights for Supporting State Intervention in the Family – An Empirical Study of Populations in Six European Countries’, Journal of European Social Policy 0, no. 0 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287241311148.
[5] Bo Rothstein and J. A. N. Teorell, ‘What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions’, Governance 21, no. 2 (2008): 165–90, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x.
[6] Jonathan Jackson et al., ‘Developing Core National Indicators of Public Attitudes towards the Police in Canada’, Policing and Society 33, no. 3 (2023): 276–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2022.2102757.